Whether Christ's body rose glorified? [*Some editions give this article as the third, following the order of the introduction
to the question. But this is evident from the first sentence of the body of A[3] (A[2] in the aforesaid editions), that the
order of the Leonine edition is correct.]

Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified. For glorified bodies shine, according to Mat. 13:43: "Then shall the just shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." But shining bodies are seen under the aspect of light,
but not of color. Therefore, since Christ's body was beheld under the aspect of color, as it had been hitherto, it seems that
it was not a glorified one.

Objection 2: Further, a glorified body is incorruptible. But Christ's body seems not to have been incorruptible; because it was palpable,
as He Himself says in Lk. 24:39: "Handle, and see." Now Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi) that "what is handled must be corruptible, and that which is incorruptible
cannot be handled." Consequently, Christ's body was not glorified.

Objection 3: Further, a glorified body is not animal, but spiritual, as is clear from 1 Cor. 15. But after the Resurrection Christ's body seems to have been animal, since He ate and drank with His disciples, as we read
in the closing chapters of Luke and John. Therefore, it seems that Christ's body was not glorified.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Phil. 3:21): "He will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory."

I answer that, Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection
was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Cor. 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor,
it shall rise in glory." Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much
more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection
by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said (Jn. 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He asks
for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Q[34], A[4]), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by
perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (Q[14], A[1], ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion
He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was finished,
straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.

Reply to Objection 1: Whatever is received within a subject is received according to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from
the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified
body is after the manner of natural color in the human body; just as variously colored glass derives its splendor from the
sun's radiance, according to the mode of the color. But as it lies within the power
of a glorified man whether his body be seen or not, as stated above (A[1], ad 2), so is it in his power whether its splendor
be seen or not. Accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness. And it was in this way that Christ's body
appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection.

Reply to Objection 2: We say that a body can be handled not only because of its resistance, but also on account of its density. But from rarity
and density follow weight and lightness, heat and cold, and similar contraries, which are the principles of corruption in
elementary bodies. Consequently, a body that can be handled by human touch is naturally corruptible. But if there be a body
that resists touch, and yet is not disposed according to the qualities mentioned, which
are the proper objects of human touch, such as a heavenly body, then such body cannot be said to be handled. But Christ's
body after the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires,
and therefore it could naturally be handled; and if it had nothing beyond the nature of a human body, it would likewise be
corruptible. But it had something else which made it incorruptible, and this was not the nature of a heavenly body, as some
maintain, and into which we shall make fuller inquiry later (XP, Q[82], A[1]), but it was glory flowing from a beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii): "God made the soul
of such powerful nature, that from its fullest beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the body, that is, the vigor
of incorruption." And therefore Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi): "Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature, but
of different glory, after the
Resurrection."

Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): "After the Resurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat with
the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His power." For as Bede says on Lk. 24:41: "The thirsty earth sucks in the water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from need, the latter by its power."
Hence after the Resurrection He ate, "not as needing food, but in order thus to
show the nature of His risen body." Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that stands in need of food.